Antibacterial activities of a fosfomycin/tobramycin combination: a novel inhaled antibiotic for bronchiectasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the in vitro and in vivo activities of a 4:1 (w/w) fosfomycin/tobramycin combination (FTI) with those of fosfomycin and tobramycin alone against cystic fibrosis (CF) and non-CF bronchiectasis pathogens. METHODS: Clinical isolates of CF Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Burkholderia cepacia complex, Escherichia coli and Klebsiellia spp. were evaluated by MIC, MBC, post-antibiotic effect (PAE), synergy, time-kill, a rat pneumonia model and spontaneous mutation frequency (SMF). RESULTS: FTI showed high activity against E. coli, H. influenzae, S. aureus and Klebsiella spp. For the S. aureus strains, 75% of which were methicillin resistant (MRSA), FTI had a lower MIC(90) than tobramycin. For P. aeruginosa, FTI had a lower MIC(90) than fosfomycin, but tobramycin was more active than either. Synergy studies showed no antagonism between fosfomycin and tobramycin, and 93% of the isolates demonstrated no interaction. FTI was rapidly bactericidal and exhibited concentration-dependent killing in time-kill studies. In the rat pneumonia model, FTI and tobramycin demonstrated bactericidal killing of P. aeruginosa; both were more active than fosfomycin alone. The SMF for S. aureus resistance to FTI was 2-4 log(10) lower than that for tobramycin and 2-7 log(10) lower than that for fosfomycin. For P. aeruginosa, the FTI SMF was 2-3 log(10) lower than that for fosfomycin and 1-2 log(10) lower than that for tobramycin. CONCLUSIONS: FTI is a broad-spectrum antibiotic combination with high activity in vitro and in vivo. These data suggest FTI could be a potential treatment for respiratory infections caused by gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic bacteria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".